Putin: Russian Troops could be in Kiev, Vilnius, Tallinn, Riga, Warsaw, and Bucharest in Two Days - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46023086]During the last elections there was a realistic and better alternative: Prohorov. But he was rejected by the majority because nobody trusts business people in Russia and Prohorov was a businessman that went to politics (I can't think of a single succesful businessman in politics in russia). The conclusion is that the majority of people here really need Putin whether we like it or not.[/QUOTE] So the Russian people voted in a ex-special services member whose background has nothing to do with politics and is a complete fucking nutjob over the successful, well presented businessman whose background is entirely more fitting when it comes to the economical side of politics. Congratulations Russia, you're fucking idiots for holding prejudice because of someone's background. Then again you all come across as hating gays and transfolk so not really surprised by the 3rd world level stupidity coming out.

[QUOTE=Reagy;46023380]So the Russian people voted in a ex-special services member whose background has nothing to do with politics and is a complete fucking nutjob over the successful, well presented businessman whose background is entirely more fitting when it comes to the economical side of politics. Congratulations Russia, you're fucking idiots for holding prejudice because of someone's background. Then again you all come across as hating gays and transfolk so not really surprised by the 3rd world level stupidity coming out.[/QUOTE] You're good at generalizing.

[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;46022637]Do people not understand how strong Russia's army actually is? If they were actually wanting to invade the Ukraine, they would've done so long ago. What they're actually doing are helping the civilians. People really need to open their eyes for once and look at the bigger picture from a different perspective. Of course, Putin is making himself look like a fucking cartoon villain, but there's more to that. If they really wanted to start taking over more countries, they would've done so by force. Since when has Russia ever really tried to take things slowly? They just say fuck it and do it. What he said in this message was what I meant; if he really wants to take over the Ukraine, he would've done so already. Nothing is stopping him from doing so, but he isn't doing that. The troops that are coming back dead aren't from the army, they're volunteers. People who volunteered to go fight for the separatists or the government. My point isn't that we should fear Russia, but understand that they're not fucking around with the Ukraine. And putting sanctions onto Russia is just fucking the already fucked civilians even more. I'm gonna probably get dumbed to hell and back, but take it with a pinch of salt. Maybe we're not seeing the full picture, because trust me, what's happening in Donetsk is literal hell on earth.[/QUOTE] The Russian Army, pretty consistently for the past decade, has more casualties to suicide than the US Army took to enemy action WHILE OCCUPYING TWO COUNTRIES. The Russian military is mostly draftees. America's army is purely volunteers, which means they're better-trained because they actually *want* to be trained. And yet we still have a larger standing army. Russia has no ability to project power. If they want to go to war with France, their only option is to fight their way through all of Europe to get there. Us? We have naval power - we can put an airbase anywhere in the world, then launch attacks from it. If Russia and America fight, the battleground is going to be on Russian turf, not American - which means Russia is the one suffering more. Most importantly, we've seen what happens when America goes up against a Russian-equipped, Russian-trained force. Iraq was using Russian equipment and Russian tactics. And during the invasion phase of the war, they got absolutely murdered. Russia may have more tanks, but we have tank-killer helicopters that will chew them up and spit them out. Putin isn't holding off from invasion because of some benevolence. He's holding off because a) he doesn't want to risk revealing that his entire army is SHIT, and b) because the [I]best-case[/I] scenario for Russia in a global war is that it goes nuclear and he takes the rest of the world down with him.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;46023448]The Russian Army, pretty consistently for the past decade, has more casualties to suicide than the US Army took to enemy action WHILE OCCUPYING TWO COUNTRIES. The Russian military is mostly draftees. America's army is purely volunteers, which means they're better-trained because they actually *want* to be trained. And yet we still have a larger standing army. Russia has no ability to project power. If they want to go to war with France, their only option is to fight their way through all of Europe to get there. Us? We have naval power - we can put an airbase anywhere in the world, then launch attacks from it. If Russia and America fight, the battleground is going to be on Russian turf, not American - which means Russia is the one suffering more. [B]Most importantly, we've seen what happens when America goes up against a Russian-equipped, Russian-trained force. Iraq was using Russian equipment and Russian tactics. And during the invasion phase of the war, they got absolutely murdered. Russia may have more tanks, but we have tank-killer helicopters that will chew them up and spit them out.[/B] Putin isn't holding off from invasion because of some benevolence. He's holding off because a) he doesn't want to risk revealing that his entire army is SHIT, and b) because the [I]best-case[/I] scenario for Russia in a global war is that it goes nuclear and he takes the rest of the world down with him.[/QUOTE] Yeah that just discounted your entire post. The Iraqi army can in no way be possibly compared to Russia and you know absolutely nothing.

[url]http://m.censor.net.ua/news/303295/presssekretar_poroshenko_ne_podtverjdaet_informatsiyu_o_razgovore_po_povodu_slov_putina_za_dva_dnya[/url] This article states that the press secretary of ukraine denies the fact that putin has said this, any other russian speaking person here is welcome to further confirm this. What we're seeing is an informational war at it's finest.

[QUOTE=LEETNOOB;46023513][url]http://m.censor.net.ua/news/303295/presssekretar_poroshenko_ne_podtverjdaet_informatsiyu_o_razgovore_po_povodu_slov_putina_za_dva_dnya[/url] This article states that the press secretary of ukraine denies the fact that putin has said this, any other russian speaking person here is welcome to further confirm this. What we're seeing is an informational war at it's finest.[/QUOTE] It's not an information war, it's Balkan state media. Anybody who believed the article was dumb anyway, otherwise it would have been on the BBC etc.

[QUOTE=laserguided;46023540]It's not an information war, it's Balkan state media. Anybody who believed the article was dumb anyway, otherwise it would have been on the BBC etc.[/QUOTE] But misleading people IS an informational war, call it brainwashing if you will.

[QUOTE=NotMeh;46013536]I wish putin would just fucking die I'm so sick of this shit[/QUOTE] You, me, and the rest of the planet.

[QUOTE=LEETNOOB;46023513][url]http://m.censor.net.ua/news/303295/presssekretar_poroshenko_ne_podtverjdaet_informatsiyu_o_razgovore_po_povodu_slov_putina_za_dva_dnya[/url] This article states that the press secretary of ukraine denies the fact that putin has said this, any other russian speaking person here is welcome to further confirm this. What we're seeing is an informational war at it's finest.[/QUOTE] So it's all a hoax.

[QUOTE=Swineflu;46015200]We use a modified version of the T-55, but pretty much nothing remains of the T-55, it's completely changed. The TR85-M1 (developed in 1994) is a pretty decent defense tank, it's made for our terrain, which is mostly mountainous. Russia would be in for the real fight when they reach the Carpathian mountains. Btw know the NATO exercise in Germany? We had a fight between 5 of our MBT's vs 7 American Abrams. All the Abrams tanks were destroyed while only 1 of our tanks took slight damage. How? The Abrams tanks were ambushed. If you're curious, [url]http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tr85m1.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah the Abrams does well on open terrain, but American hardware really has trouble in mountains. The mountains of Afghanistan were rough for US marines. Purpose built equipment designed for mountain fighting is going to be extremely difficult to overcome.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;46023448]The Russian Army, pretty consistently for the past decade, has more casualties to suicide than the US Army took to enemy action WHILE OCCUPYING TWO COUNTRIES. The Russian military is mostly draftees. America's army is purely volunteers, which means they're better-trained because they actually *want* to be trained. And yet we still have a larger standing army. Russia has no ability to project power. If they want to go to war with France, their only option is to fight their way through all of Europe to get there. Us? We have naval power - we can put an airbase anywhere in the world, then launch attacks from it. If Russia and America fight, the battleground is going to be on Russian turf, not American - which means Russia is the one suffering more. Most importantly, we've seen what happens when America goes up against a Russian-equipped, Russian-trained force. Iraq was using Russian equipment and Russian tactics. And during the invasion phase of the war, they got absolutely murdered. Russia may have more tanks, but we have tank-killer helicopters that will chew them up and spit them out. Putin isn't holding off from invasion because of some benevolence. He's holding off because a) he doesn't want to risk revealing that his entire army is SHIT, and b) because the [I]best-case[/I] scenario for Russia in a global war is that it goes nuclear and he takes the rest of the world down with him.[/QUOTE] Russia doesn't [i]need[/i] to project power. All it needs to do is rely purely on defense and nothing else. Launching an American assault on Russia would be disastrous for both sides, because the US will be forced to endure highly unacceptable causalities, the kind of causalities they haven't experienced for 70 years, for literally no good reason. (no, "defending our allies" isn't going to be a valid excuse to drum up patriotism when thousands of americans come back home in caskets, that hasn't worked since WW2.) And no NATO-signed piece of paper guaranteeing protection to all NATO members is going to matter much when reality settles in. What you need to understand is that real life warfare and politics aren't a video game where the side that has more money and resources wins. This kind of war will simply never happen. Hypothesizing about large scale wars like that is purely idiotic and easily veers off into high-school territory with "my dad could beat up your dad" type of parallel drawings and statistic comparisons where everyone turns into an arm-chair general while having 20 Wikipedia tabs open. Also using Iraq as a juxtaposition for "Russian failure" against an American force is hilarious. Iraqis weren't trained to any serious degree and were using outdated equipment that they had basically no idea how to use, there are countless of stories about their hilarious failures on the battlefield, they even loaded some tanks with the wrong type of shell for christ sake which often resulted in the tank firing mechanism just breaking on the spot and leaving the tank useless in the middle of battle. Imagine for a second if Russia invaded Afghanistan right now and wiped out the ISAF/NATO-trained military and police force, would you use that as a valid example of "what happens when Russia goes up against Western-equipped, Western-trained forces"? No, obviously, because that would be absolutely retarded.

Not gonna happen. The baltics can be defended easily through marine navies in the baltics, or ground troops via Poland Poland is easily defendable with logistics comming through and from eastern Germany, and militaries via east Ukraine,Czech Rep.&Slovakia To get to Romania, you'd first have to pass through all of Ukraine, then traverse mountaneous terrain through Moldova, or the Danubian Delta's marshes. Logistics to Romania could be provided from Germany,Austria, Hungary, etc through the navigable Danube channel, or over land through west Romania, from Bulgaria etc. Through and through, Russia imo is rather aiming for a defensive stance, not an offensive one, because the former one has almost a certain chance of failing. Lest not forget the anti-nuke defence sistems both on ground in countries like Poland or Romania, and on US navy ships scattered throughout the baltic,black& medditeranean sea. It's basically a version of Israel's Iron dome, but for nuke rockets. [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/JUdcm5s.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/EKpOrIu.jpg[/thumb]

I'm sure Russia can easily overrun the Baltic states. But Poland and Romania will be tougher to reach and crack open. [editline]19th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46023086]During the last elections there was a realistic and better alternative: Prohorov. But he was rejected by the majority[B] because nobody trusts business people in Russia and Prohorov was a businessman that went to politics[/B] (I can't think of a single succesful businessman in politics in russia). The conclusion is that the majority of people here really need Putin whether we like it or not.[/QUOTE] Wow, you guys really are the total opposite of America :v:

[QUOTE=godfatherk;46024182]Not gonna happen. The baltics can be defended easily through marine navies in the baltics, or ground troops via Poland Poland is easily defendable with logistics comming through and from eastern Germany, and militaries via east Ukraine,Czech Rep.&Slovakia To get to Romania, you'd first have to pass through all of Ukraine, then traverse mountaneous terrain through Moldova, or the Danubian Delta's marshes. Logistics to Romania could be provided from Germany,Austria, Hungary, etc through the navigable Danube channel, or over land through west Romania, from Bulgaria etc. Through and through, Russia imo is rather aiming for a defensive stance, not an offensive one, because the former one has almost a certain chance of failing. Lest not forget the anti-nuke defence sistems both on ground in countries like Poland or Romania, and on US navy ships scattered throughout the baltic,black& medditeranean sea. It's basically a version of Israel's Iron dome, but for nuke rockets. [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/JUdcm5s.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/EKpOrIu.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] This is what i call a true armchair general's post. Even with pictures and tactiool schemes!

[QUOTE=GunFox;46023631]Yeah the Abrams does well on open terrain, but American hardware really has trouble in mountains. The mountains of Afghanistan were rough for US marines. Purpose built equipment designed for mountain fighting is going to be extremely difficult to overcome.[/QUOTE] Yep, our entire strategy in case of getting invaded will be pretty much, retreat to the Carpathians (it's pretty much a wall around the western half of our country) and ambush the enemy army until they either give up or reinforcements come. Which is why we have equipment made for mountains, and we have a big part of our army completely trained in mountain fighting tactics.

I have to admit though, if what wikipedia states is true, Putin is doing a fairly good job regarding domestic issues. [QUOTE]During Putin's first premiership and presidency (1999–2008), real incomes increased by a factor of 2.5, real wages more than tripled; unemployment and poverty more than halved, and the Russians' self-assessed life satisfaction rose significantly.[9] Putin's first presidency was marked by high economic growth: the Russian economy grew for eight straight years, seeing GDP increase by 72% in PPP (as for nominal GDP, 600%).[9][10][11][12][13] As Russia's president, Putin and the Federal Assembly passed into law a flat income tax of 13%, a reduced profits tax, and new land and legal codes.[14][15] As Prime Minister, Putin oversaw large-scale military and police reform. His energy policy has affirmed Russia's position as an energy superpower.[citation needed] Putin supported high-tech industries such as the nuclear and defence industries. A rise in foreign investment[16] contributed to a boom in such sectors as the automotive industry[/QUOTE] He's like the opposite of bush senior.

I think the evidence is there to strongly disagree that Russia's intents are purely defensive. You just have to look at their recent actions, their military composition and chiefly their military procurement to see that its main priority is power projection. Russia has also given no political indication that it would hesitate in using that power projection, yet people here still seem to think all Putin is concerned with is setting up a small defence force to protect Russia's borders and EEZ?

[QUOTE=Turing;46022960]he is not your usual stereotype totalitarian dictator, just more of a corrupt authoritarian type[/QUOTE] Putin is a cunt.